Abstract
This paper analyses existing trends in the collaborative structure of the Pharmacology and Pharmacy field in Spain and explores its relationship with research impact. The evolution in terms of size of the research community, the typology of collaborative links (national, international) and the scope of the collaboration (size of links, type of partners) are studied by means of different measures based on co-authorship. Growing heterogeneity of collaboration and impact of research are observed over the years. Average journal impact (MNJS) and citation score (MNCS) normalised to world average tend to grow with the number of authors, the number of institutions and collaboration type. Both national and international collaboration show MNJS values above the country’s average, but only internationally co-authored publications attain citation rates above the world’s average. This holds at country and institutional sector levels, although not all institutional sectors obtain the same benefit from collaboration. Multilateral collaboration with high-level R&D countries yields the highest values of research impact, although the impact of collaboration with low-level R&D countries has been optimised over the years. Although scientific collaboration is frequently based on individual initiative, policy actions are required to promote the more heterogeneous types of collaboration.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A preliminary version of this paper has been presented to the Science and Technology Indicators Conference, Montreal, Canada, September 5–8, 2012 (Bordons et al. 2012a).
Although the CSIC belongs to the sector of public research centres, it has been considered separately under the assumption that collaboration between different CSIC centres involves less diversity than that between CSIC’s and other public research centres.
.
Special mention should be made of the rise in the share of co-authored papers between university and hospitals, which increases from 13 to 23 % of university papers over time.
Average research level: 2.74 for multilateral versus 2.95 for bilateral collaboration in the first period; 2.57 for multilateral versus 2.82 for bilateral collaboration in the second period.
“Centros de investigación biomédica en red” (CIBER), created by the Spanish government to achieve a critical mass of researchers by fields and beyond institutional boundaries to succeed in obtaining excellence in research.
References
Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Di Costa, F. (2009). Research collaboration and productivity: is there correlation? Higher Education, 57, 155–171.
Adams, J. D., Black, G. C., Clemmons, J. R., & Stephan, P. (2005). Scientific teams and institutional collaboration: evidence from US universities, 1981–1999. Research Policy, 34, 259–285.
Basu, A., & Vinu-Kumar, B. S. (2000). International collaboration in Indian scientific papers. Scientometrics, 48 (3), 381–402.
Beaver, D. D., & Rosen, R. (1979). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part 2. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics, 1 (2), 133–149.
Bordons, M., Gómez, I., Morillo, F., Aparicio, J., Aguillo, I., & Sancho, R. (2012b). Estructura y dinámica de los campos científicos en España a través del análisis de las redes de colaboración entre investigadores. Report. Madrid: IEDCYT-CCHS, CSIC.
Bordons, M., & Barrigón, S. (1992). Bibliometric analysis of publications of Spanish pharmacologists in the SCI (1984–89). II. Contribution to subfields other than “Pharmacology and Pharmacy (ISI)”. Scientometrics, 25 (3), 425–446.
Bordons, M., García-Jover, F., & Barrigón, S. (1993). Is collaboration improving research visibility? Spanish scientific output in Pharmacology and Pharmacy. Research Evaluation, 3 (1), 19–24.
Bordons, M., Aparicio, J., & Costas, R. (2012a). Trends in the collaborative structure of the Spanish pharmacological scientific production and its influence over research impact. In: Proceedings of STI 2012. 17th international conference on science and technology indicators. (Vol. 1). Québec: Université du Québec à Montreal.
Corley, E. A., Boardman, P. C., & Bozeman, B. (2006). Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: theoretical implication from two case studies. Research Policy, 35 (7), 975–993.
Costas, R., & Bordons, M. (2007). Algoritmos para solventar la falta de normalización de nombres de autor en los estudios bibliométricos. Investigación bibliotecológica: archivonomía, bibliotecología e información, 21 (42), 13–32.
Costas, R., Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Bordons, M. (2012). Referencing patterns of individual researchers: do top scientists rely on more extensive information sources? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (forthcoming).
Francescht, M., & Costantini, A. (2010). The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers. Journal of Informetrics, 4, 540–553.
García-Romero, A., Navarrete-Cortés, J., Escudero, C., Fernández-López, J. A., & Chaichío-Moreno, J. A. (2009). Measuring the influence of clinical trials citations on several bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 80 (3), 749–762.
Gazni, A., & Didegah, F. (2011). Investigating different types of research collaboration and citation impact: a case study of Harvard University’s publications. Scientometrics, 87 (2), 251–265.
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: authors, institutions and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63 (2), 323–335.
Glänzel, W. (2001). National characteristics in international scientific co-authorship relations. Scientometrics, 51 (1), 69–115.
Glänzel, W., & Lange, C. (2002). A distributional approach to multinationality measures of international scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 54 (1), 75–89.
Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2004). Analysing scientific networks trough co-authorship. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative S and T research (pp. 257–276). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
Glänzel, W., & Thijs, B. (2004). Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics, 61 (3), 395–404.
Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & De Rouen, K. (2003). Science from the periphery: collaboration, networks and “periphery effects” in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 57 (3), 321–337.
Gómez, I., Fernández, M. T., & Sebastián, J. (1999). Analysis of the structure of international scientific cooperation networks through bibliometric indicators. Scientometrics, 44 (3), 441–457.
Gómez, I., Bordons, M., Morillo, F., Moreno, L., & González-Albo, B. (2010). La actividad científica del CSIC a través del Web of Science. In: Estudio bibliométrico del periodo 2004–2009. Madrid: IEDCYTCCHS, CSIC.
González-Albo, B., & Bordons, M. (2011). Articles vs. proceedings papers: do they differ in research relevance and impact? A case study in the Library and Information Science field. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (3), 369–381.
Gorraiz, J., Reimann, R., & Gumpenberger, C. (2012). The importance of bilateral and multilateral differentiation in the assessment of international collaboration—a case study for Austria and six countries. Scientometrics, 91 (2), 417–433.
Hackett, E. (2005). Introduction: special gust-edited issue on scientific collaboration. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5), 667–671.
Haslam, N., Ban, L., Kaufmann, L., Loughnan, S., Peters, K., Whelan, J., et al. (2008). What makes an article influential? Predicting impact in social and personality psychology. Scientometrics, 76 (1), 169–185.
He, Z. L. (2009). International collaboration does not have greater epistemic authority. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60 (10), 2151–2164.
Jha, Y., & Welch, E. (2010). Relational mechanisms governing multifaceted collaborative behavior of academic scientists in six fields of science and engineering. Research Policy, 39 (9), 1174–1184.
Katz, S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26 (1), 1–18.
Kostoff, R. N. (2007). The difference between highly and poorly cited medical articles in the journal Lancet. Scientometrics, 72 (3), 513–520.
Lander, B., & Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2011). Translational science and the hidden research system in universities and academic hospitals: a case study. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 537–544.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35, 673–702.
Mattsson, P., Laget, P., NilssonVindefjärd, A., & Sundberg, C. J. (2010). What do European research collaboration networks in life sciences look like? Research Evaluation, 19 (5), 373–384.
McVeigh, M. E., & Mann, S. J. (2009). The journal impact factor denominator. Defining citable (counted) items. JAMA, 302 (10), 1107–1109.
Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation analysis in research evaluation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Narin, F., Stevens, K., & Whitlow, E. (1991). Scientific cooperation in Europe and the citations of multi-nationally authored papers. Scientometrics, 21 (3), 313–323.
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. PNAS, 98 (2), 404–409.
Noma, E. (1986). Subject Classification and influence weights for 3,000 journals. In Research report under CHI and NIH contracts. New Jersey: Computer Horizons Inc. Research.
Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Diversity and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12 (4), 502–517.
The Word Bank. Science and Technology Indicators. Retrieved, March 15, 2012. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS.
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41 (1), 643–681.
Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A. (2011). Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28 (6), 819–832.
The Royal Society. (2011). Knowledge, networks and nations: global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: Royal Society.
Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. A. (2010). Structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Research Evaluation, 19 (1), 55–65.
Tijssen, R. J. W., Waltman, L., & van Eck, L. (2012). Research collaboration and the expanding science grid: measuring globalisation processes worldwide. http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.4194.
Van Leeuwen, T. N., & Tijssen, R. (2007). Strength and weakness of national science systems. A bibliometric analysis through cooperation patterns. In: D. Torres-Salinas, & H. F. Moed, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 469–479). Madrid: CINDOC-CSIC.
Waltman, L., van Eck, N. J., Van Leeuwen, T. N., Visser, M. S., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (2011). Towards a new crown indicator: some theoretical considerations. Journal of Informetrics, 5 (1), 37–47.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by research grant CSO2008-06310 from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation. Special thanks to Isabel Gómez for her comments on a previous draft of this paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
See Table 9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bordons, M., Aparicio, J. & Costas, R. Heterogeneity of collaboration and its relationship with research impact in a biomedical field. Scientometrics 96, 443–466 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0890-7
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0890-7